Citizens Coinage Advisory Committee --- new member needed

[delta]

Another member is now needed for the Citizens Coinage Advisory Committee, someone specifically knowledgeable in US history, as explained in a recent article by Paul Gilkes in the 24 Feb. 2014 issue of Coin World:

 

article

 

I urge any NGC forum members to please apply for this position if they consider themselves qualified. Among posters here, RWB is obviously eminently qualified, and should be encouraged to submit an application. Deadline is March 28th.

[RWB]

The open position is for someone expert in American history. This is very important because they act as a reality check on the Mint staff who sometimes get the histroy wrong.

 

The CCAC reviews proposed designs but does not originate them.

 

As a former CCAC member I encourage qualified persons to apply.

 

RWB

[CaptHenway]

I have applied before, but I don't think they like me.

[Crohnos01]

I doubt my qualifications... Although just due to age, my kids say I am historic because I lived through some history... Unfortunately, now I am reaching the age where I can't remember it....

[BillJones]

I think I have the qualifications, but I'm not famous and also not into political correctness.

[BillJones]

I have applied before, but I don't think they like me.

 

If they don't like you, I know they won't like me.

[delta]

Please do take the time and effort to apply! Even just judging from your postings in this forum, I think your knowledge, experience and levelheadedness would be an enormous asset to the CCAC.

 

 

I think I have the qualifications, but I'm not famous and also not into political correctness.

[delta]

When you previously applied, was it before your formal retirement, and if so, might they have figured you lacked the time to attend meetings? Please go ahead anyway and take this opportunity to apply again, good luck with it.

 

I have applied before, but I don't think they like me.

[delta]

Sorry, I hadn't realized you were formerly a member, does that eliminate you from consideration?

 

As a former CCAC member I encourage qualified persons to apply. RWB

[RWB]

Delta - I remain involved in the Langbord litigation and cannot have any Treasury Dept. role until that is concluded.

[GoldFinger1969]

Delta - I remain involved in the Langbord litigation and cannot have any Treasury Dept. role until that is concluded.

 

Wow, that's fascinating. I want to read Illegal Tender sometime this year and just saw the Smithsonian Channel documentary Hunt For The Double Eagle.

 

What's up with the litigation ? Can you venture a guess as to what you think might be the outcome or is that off-limits given your involvement ?

 

Personally, I think a win-win situation is something along the lines of the earlier 1933 coin: sell the coin(s), put the rest on display, and maybe involve the family and Treasury officials in promoting the story to keep folks interested in coin collecting. Make an up-to-date documentary, maybe do a travelling road show to promote the story/coins.

 

It's a fascinating story and I think all 3 sides can win: the Treasury, the Langbords, and the coin collecting community. (thumbs u

[RWB]

The Federal court decision is in the appreal process and I cannot comment on the case.

 

I can, however, refer you to several articles I wrote for Coin World before I was involved. Also, David Tripp's Illegal Tender and Alison Frankel's Double Eagle, while entertaining, are based on only the Secret Service documents and do not tell the full story. That is, do not believe all of what is presented as "fact."

[GoldFinger1969]

The Federal court decision is in the appreal process and I cannot comment on the case.

 

Understood....please keep us posted with any pending announcements if that is permissible.

 

I can, however, refer you to several articles I wrote for Coin World before I was involved. Also, David Tripp's Illegal Tender and Alison Frankel's Double Eagle, while entertaining, are based on only the Secret Service documents and do not tell the full story. That is, do not believe all of what is presented as "fact."

 

Yes, I saw Frankel in the documentary and from what I have read I believe even Tripp acknowledges that there's a good chance that possession of the 10 Eagles was not necessarily illegal, given all the 'swapping' that was done out of the Philadelphia Mint. The fact that the government was saying the Farook coin was illegal when the Treasury had given an Export License for the coin shows that sometimes the government's left hand doesn't know what the right hand is thinking.

 

I hope they reach a settlement that is good for both parties and the coin community. Like I said, if they play this right it could benefit the Treasury/U.S. Mint bigtime in promoting gold coins generally and Saint Gaudens specifically (not that they make them anymore but the 2009 UHR was such a big success I can't not see a future one not being even bigger if the 1933's help promote the story).

[GoldFinger1969]

I can, however, refer you to several articles I wrote for Coin World before I was involved. Also, David Tripp's Illegal Tender and Alison Frankel's Double Eagle, while entertaining, are based on only the Secret Service documents and do not tell the full story. That is, do not believe all of what is presented as "fact."

 

RWB, I did find the COINWORLD articles, thanks for the heads-up.

 

You seem to have done a good job. I understand the sensitivity to even respond on these forums -- I work in the financial sector and it's a sensitive subject for PM's, CEO's, and analysts -- so don't even feel the need to respond to this.

 

My own 2 cents -- actually my own $20 since that's the face value of the coins -- is that the government doesn't need 10 coins to showcase around the country. You can easily make 4-6 of them accessible to most people geographically.

 

Anybody who buys the remaining ones sold off at auction will almost certainly put them on display. Can't believe someone would hoard it, though it's possible. That's the solution I recommend -- split the proceeds (even if it's not 50-50) -- and put them all or most of them on display. The story with all the other facts told by you and Tripp is fascinating. The SS Agents and the Langbords can also add their personal information.

 

The Treasury better not be in favor of melting them down. That would be an abomination.

 

I hope if there's another Smithsonian Channel special we get to see you interviewed, RWB ! (thumbs u

[Conder101]

My own 2 cents -- actually my own $20 since that's the face value of the coins -- is that the government doesn't need 10 coins to showcase around the country. You can easily make 4-6 of them accessible to most people geographically.

The problem is part of the agreement on the sale of the first one was that the government would not monitize any other specimens So if they make the others available they open themselves up to a suit by the other buyer.

[RWB]

"Monetization" is a meaningless term in this situation. All US coins were legal tender as soon as the coiner approved them and the superintendent accepted delivery.

 

"Monetization" refers only to the 1934 situation where legislation permitted silver bullion to be used to back silver certificates without being struck into coins. This is what really ended silver dollar production in 1935.

 

The 1933 DEs, and all previous issues, were not bullion once the coiner accepted them as legally conforming coinage. No one had to wave a magic administrative wand or sprinkle sacred Treasury pee on them to make them real coins.

 

[This subject was not part of the litigation. See "From Mine to Mint" for more info.]

 

[RWB]

PS: Everyone involved in the original situation is dead.

[GoldFinger1969]

My own 2 cents -- actually my own $20 since that's the face value of the coins -- is that the government doesn't need 10 coins to showcase around the country. You can easily make 4-6 of them accessible to most people geographically.

The problem is part of the agreement on the sale of the first one was that the government would not monitize any other specimens So if they make the others available they open themselves up to a suit by the other buyer.

 

I didn't know that....why would they make that promise when it was always possible that there were other 1933 Saints out there and maybe some of them were quasi-legitimate like the earlier one because of the Treasury Export Letter ? I wonder if it is enforceable if it is in writing.

 

I know that Tripp was quoted as saying that if 10 more came on the market that the price of the earlier Saint could fall by 90% to under $1 MM -- but I disagree. The increased publicity and liquidity from having a few of the coins could -- over time -- lead to a better market for the 10 or 11 coins. Yes, there would be an initial drop (probably) but when you have only 1 of anything (1 coin in this case) there isn't a free market. With the 1849 Liberty DE there isn't even a market because there's only 1 coin in the Smithsonian.

 

Besides, I'm sure the earlier buyer won't go hungry if the coin falls in value.

[GoldFinger1969]

PS: Everyone involved in the original situation is dead.

You mean involved in the 1933 Saint in the 1930's and 1940's -- not the folks involved since 1996 when Fenton tried to sell it in NYC, right ?

 

I presume the government prosecutor, the buyer, and others involved in the trial and settlement are all still alive.

[RWB]

Original = 1940s

[CSdot]

My own 2 cents -- actually my own $20 since that's the face value of the coins -- is that the government doesn't need 10 coins to showcase around the country. You can easily make 4-6 of them accessible to most people geographically.

The problem is part of the agreement on the sale of the first one was that the government would not monitize any other specimens So if they make the others available they open themselves up to a suit by the other buyer.

 

That is some really cool insight into the lawsuit. It does make me wonder if the buyer of the earlier Saint (1) would be barred by the Statute of Limitations, and (2) might not have standing to bring the claim as he was not a party to the contract between the seller and the Mint not to monetize any other specimens.

[GoldFinger1969]

My own 2 cents -- actually my own $20 since that's the face value of the coins -- is that the government doesn't need 10 coins to showcase around the country. You can easily make 4-6 of them accessible to most people geographically.

The problem is part of the agreement on the sale of the first one was that the government would not monitize any other specimens So if they make the others available they open themselves up to a suit by the other buyer.

That is some really cool insight into the lawsuit. It does make me wonder if the buyer of the earlier Saint (1) would be barred by the Statute of Limitations, and (2) might not have standing to bring the claim as he was not a party to the contract between the seller and the Mint not to monetize any other specimens.

 

I haven't seen the language pertaining to the 2002 purchase but my guess is that the buyer of the 1933 is not in any position to sue the government if another coin is legally available. If the government does what it is doing now -- trying to prevent more 1933 releases -- then the government is living up to its contractual obligations.

 

If someone has some 'smoking gun' like the Treasury Export License that the government isn't aware of (and wasn't in the earlier case), whose fault is that ?

 

If the guy spent $7 MM for a coin and was gracious and generous enough to donate it he's probably a billionaire whose net worth would be affected by a rounding error either by the loss on the original 1933 Eagle or buying more of the Langbord hoard.

 

I wish the government was this dilligent going after counterfeit coin scammers or tax cheats.....but if the government or NSA is watching this, I just want to say I think you guys are doing a GREAT job and are always in the right. (thumbs u

 

Signed,

 

A Loyal, Fully-Paid Up Taxpaying American

[Conder101]

If the guy spent $7 MM for a coin and was gracious and generous enough to donate it he's probably a billionaire whose net worth would be affected by a rounding error either by the loss on the original 1933 Eagle or buying more of the Langbord hoard.

As far as I know he has not donated it to anyone. He has loaned it for display at the NY Federal Reserve, and I believe it is currently on loan to the ANS but not donated to them. Loaning it has great advantages. You still own it, but someone else has the headache of storage, display, and insuring it. The Bass Foundation did the same thing loaning the Bass Gold collection to the ANA Museum.

[RWB]

Yep..not to mention the bass fishing gear at ANA, too!

[CSdot]

[

 

I wish the government was this dilligent going after counterfeit coin scammers or tax cheats.....but if the government or NSA is watching this, I just want to say I think you guys are doing a GREAT job and are always in the right. (thumbs u

 

Signed,

 

A Loyal, Fully-Paid Up Taxpaying American

 

I wish the government was this diligent in going after the greedy and reckless SOBs whose behavior led to the 2008 collapse. Unfortunately money talks, so that will never happen.

[WoodenJefferson]

PS: Everyone involved in the original situation is dead.

 

Does that scare you?

[GoldFinger1969]

If the guy spent $7 MM for a coin and was gracious and generous enough to donate it he's probably a billionaire whose net worth would be affected by a rounding error either by the loss on the original 1933 Eagle or buying more of the Langbord hoard.

As far as I know he has not donated it to anyone. He has loaned it for display at the NY Federal Reserve, and I believe it is currently on loan to the ANS but not donated to them. Loaning it has great advantages. You still own it, but someone else has the headache of storage, display, and insuring it. The Bass Foundation did the same thing loaning the Bass Gold collection to the ANA Museum.

 

Right, well what I meant was he has permanently loaned it out. I mean, it's not like he has personal possession and lets it out from time-to-time.

 

It's been on public display since he bought it and according to Sotheby's he was insistent that it be displayed for all the public to see.

 

Since it's in NY -- lower Manhattan (actually, midtown would make it more accessible) -- I wonder if the guy is from Manhattan/NYC. I'd wager odds he is.

[GoldFinger1969]

I wish the government was this diligent in going after the greedy and reckless SOBs whose behavior led to the 2008 collapse. Unfortunately money talks, so that will never happen.

 

Unfortunately, it would probably be a conflict of interest for the government to arrest other government officials and elected officials who brought us the Credit Crisis.

 

Look no further than the bankruptcy of twin-$100 billion dollar entities, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, each of which was under the control of government officials.

[GoldFinger1969]

PS: Everyone involved in the original situation is dead.

Does that scare you?

 

Nah, they died of old age. Izzy Switt was 95 I believe.

[RWB]

PS: Everyone involved in the original situation is dead.

Does that scare you?

 

Nah, they died of old age. Izzy Switt was 95 I believe.

 

There are critical details relating to motality that cannot be discussed at present.